JUDGMENT
A.K. Sikri, J.
1. Mritak Charam Sodhan Co-operative Industrial Society Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as `the objector’) was awarded the contract of removal of carcasses from the city through the intervention of the court for which the highest bid of the objector was of Rs. 34 lacs. This was a contract for one year duration. Some disputes arose about the payments which were allegedly to be made by the objector to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter called `the MCD’). as per the MCD’s case some payments were still remained to be made by the objector to the MCD. The MCD accordingly invoked the arbitration clause in the agreement and appointed Mr. S.M.Husnain, the then Chief Engineer as the arbitrator vide orders dated 2nd June, 1994. After the retirement of Mr.Husnain, on attaining the age of superannuation, he resigned as the arbitrator vide his letter dated 18th July, 1995 and Mr.C.M.Vij, Chief Engineer was appointed as the sole arbitrator. He heard the parties and after considering the claims, directed the objector to pay a sum of Rs. 5,72,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12 per pent per annum with effect from 13th June, 1994 up to the date of payment to the MCD. It is also observed by him that this amount includes a sum of Rs. 3.40 lacs of security deposit which shall have to be refunded to the objector by the MCD after making admissible recoveries. The relevant portion of the award reads as under: AND WHEREAS, thus M/s Mritak Charam Sodhan Co-operative Industrial Society Ltd.(Through its President-Shri Shyam Singh)/Respondent shall pay a sum of Rs. 5,72,000/- (Rs.Five lacs Seventy two thousands) along with interest @ 12% p.a.w.e.f.13-6-1994 to the date of payment to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (through DHO (PH)/Claimant and that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi/Claimant shall have to refund Rs. 3.40 lacs (Rs.Three lacs Forty thousand) only to the Respondent after making admissible recoveries, if any, as per terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties dated 18-1-1994.
2. The said award was filed by the arbitrator in this court and was registered as CS(OS) No. 348-A/1997. Notice of this award was issued to both the parties. The objector has filed this application raising objections against the aforesaid award dated 11th July, 1996.
3. The case set up by the objector, in brief, is as under:
4. The objector was awarded the contract by the MCD for lifting of carcasses. In fact, this contract was initially awarded to Ramey and Sons. This was for the year 1993-94 i.e. from 1st April 1993 to 31st March, 1994. Award of this contract was challenged by the objector in this court by filing CWP No. 1200/1993 mainly on the ground that the contract was awarded for negligible amount. The Division Bench of this court passed the following order on 29th March, 1993 in the said writ petition:
For participating in the open bid for both the contracts, parties are directed to come on March 30, 1993 for auction. The auction would be subject to the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties.
5. After the bid when the matter came up for hearing again on 2nd April, 1993, noticing that the objector was the highest bidder whose bid was for Rs. 34 lacs, the Division Bench passed the order on 2nd April, 1993 directing that the MCD shall accept the said bid and awarded the contract which would be for the year 1993-04. The matter was adjourned to 19th April, 1993. This bid was for city of Delhi. There was another bid for and around slaughter house for which one Sagar was the highest bidder. Observations were made in the aforesaid order and subsequent orders about award of contract to Sagar also. The same are not taken note of as we are not concerned with the said matter.
6. In so far as the objector is concerned, on 19th April, 1993, it handed over a bank draft for Rs. 12 lacs to the counsel for the MCD and the court passed the direction that on payment of the said amount, the objector would be allowed to carry on business till further orde Rs. Thereafter, the matter came up for hearing on 29th April, 1993 when the Division Bench was informed that one Bhoop Singh had filed a civil suit in the court of Sub-Judge, First Class, Delhi and obtained the injunction against the objector and police help was also given in case the objector remove the dead animals from the contracted area. The Division Bench withdrew the suit from the court of the Sub-Judge and directed that it would be listed along with the writ petition. Thereafter,on 25th May, 1993 the writ petition was disposed of by making it clear that the contract is awarded to the objector. The Division Bench permitted the objector to pay Rs. 2 lacs to the MCD within two days and the balance amount in four Installments, first Installment of Rs. 5 lacs before the end of June, 1993 and next Installment of Rs. 5 lacs by the end of following month till the amount is paid.
7. The contract was awarded to the objector and the objector was allowed to work only from 20th April, 1993. Further, as injunction was granted by the Civil Court in suit filed by Bhoop Singh, the objector could not work from 23rd April to 29th April, 1993. Therefore, the objector was not allowed to work for whole year. Thus, according to the objector, no further amount is due. According to the objector, payment of Rs. 34 lacs was to be made for the work for complete one year.
8. The perusal of the claim before the arbitrator which gives the details of the disputes, would show that as per the MCD the objector made payment of only Rs. 28.8 lacs out of Rs. 34 lacs payable to the MCD and for this reason balance amount of Rs. 5.72 lacs was demanded. In reply of the objector to the said claim, the case set up by the objector was that no agreement was executed between the period of tender and as a result thereof the society could not carry out the business from July to December, 1993 . It was also challenged that the appointment of the arbitrator was illegal as the matter was to be referred to the Registrar of Societies as per the provisions of Co-operative Societies Act and Rules. Plea sought to be taken now in these objections was not taken at all before the learned arbitrator and altogether different plea was taken.
9. The arbitrator has given a non-speaking award. The arbitrator was within his right to give a non-speaking award as the contract nowhere stipulates giving of a reasoned award. Even in these objections, it is not categorically denied that as against Rs. 34 lacs the objector made payment of only Rs. 28.8 lacs. The question whether the objector was deprived for some period or not and what would be the implication thereof was to be decided by the learned arbitrator. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Raipur Development Authority etc.etc. v. Chokhmal Contractors etc.etc. reported as AIR 1990 SC 1426 has held that the arbitrator is not supposed to give reasons and the court while hearing such objections cannot fathom into the mind of the arbitrator and know the reasoning process. It may also be noted that even when some delay occurred because of the pendency of writ petition and the injunction was also in operation for 7 days, the objector still agreed to make full payment of Rs. 34 lacs and the court permitted him to make this payment in intalments. In view of this, it is not open for the objector to now raise the plea that after paying Rs. 28.8 lacs, no more amount is payable.
10. I, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the award. The objections are not covered by any of the clauses of Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 as there is no error apparent on the face of record nor is there any allegation of misconduct, legal or otherwise imputed to the arbitrator. The objections are meritless and are accordingly dismissed.
CS (OS) No. 348-A/1997
11. Consequently, the award is made rule of the court. However, from the date of decree till payment interest shall be at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. Decree be drawn accordingly. Suit is accordingly disposed of.